Mueller knows
- Thread starter 19MU88
- Start date
Nothing has changed. cheetos should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice when he leaves office.
Someone with the intelligence of a child can see that trump attempted to obstruct justice. What's that say about your intelligence?
Can you give any specific acts that support your claim?
He just has a sore cookie because Hillary lost.
A charge of obstruction of justice requires three elements: an obstructive act, a nexus with an official proceeding, and corrupt intent.
Obstructive act: “Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?” Jeffries asked.
“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act.
_________________
A nexus with an official proceeding:
“Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?” Jeffries asked.
“True,” Mueller said, confirming the nexus to an official proceeding.
___________________________________
Corrupt intent:
Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?
Mueller: I think that generally is true.
Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?
Mueller: Where do you have that quote?
Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.
Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.
like I said, you are no legal scholar. Mueller even said not impeded in anyway despite the fact our President could have fired the entire bunch of them. No executive privilege invoked. No crime of collusion. It is all bull shit. If Trump wanted him fired, he would have been fired and really, we all know that's what AW who is really running this wanted. They knew no crime of collusion/conspiracy (after all their friends created it) from the get go and drug this out hoping to trap Trump in a perjury trap or hoping he would fire someone and give them more ammo for obstruction. None of it happened so they were left with BS to spin about obstruction that only the stupidest americans (like you) buy.
I'm sorry you are stupid (albeit you aren't any different than most libs) and fell for all this crap that was pumped into your empty head by the dems and the media.
We'll just keep winning and you will keep being stupid and angry, which is no way to go through life.
Because the rest of the quote is irrelevant. Mueller ended it with a comment that is equal to "I don't necessarily agree with you, but I don't necessarily disagree with you."
Except it absolutely is relevant. Because he says he doesn’t necessarily agree with the framing of the congressman’s argument
And that it's "not out of the ball park", meaning it is in the ball park. And regardless, the 3 components of obstruction were met.
He didn't have to. Mueller himself had acknowledged all the ways that Trump’s behavior met all three prongs of the test for obstruction of justice.
To which federal criminal statute are you referring? Please include applicable subsection. Thanks.
That's what I figured. You don't know what the fvck you're even talking about.
If he would have fired Mueller you would have had an argument, but he didn't. It was fully within his power to do so, he had the means to make it happen at any time, yet it did not happen, therefore justice was not obstructed.
I think many morons on the left get confused on the word "intent" in intent to obstruct justice. It means that an act was carried out, with the intent of said act being to obstruct justice. It does not mean that a party had an intent to act, but chose not to.
An example would be that if I shot at you and missed, I attempted to murder you, my intent was to kill you through the act of shooting you. The left is trying to say that if I thought about shooting you, I am guilty of attempted murder even though I never shot at you.
I think many morons on the left get confused on the word "intent" in intent to obstruct justice. It means that an act was carried out, with the intent of said act being to obstruct justice. It does not mean that a party had an intent to act, but chose not to.
An example would be that if I shot at you and missed, I attempted to murder you, my intent was to kill you through the act of shooting you. The left is trying to say that if I thought about shooting you, I am guilty of attempted murder even though I never shot at you.
You're the moron.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s investigation.
Asked by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) whether it was “fair to say” Trump “tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation,” Mueller responded, “I would say that's generally a summary.”
Richmond then asked if, in giving the order, Trump intended to “hamper the investigation.” In response, Mueller referred Richmond back to his office’s report.
The Louisiana congressman went on to specifically ask Mueller about Trump’s attempts to get then-White House counsel Don McGahn to create a written record falsely asserting Trump had not directed him to fire Mueller, which McGahn refused.
Richmond asked if the attempts “were related to President Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry,” to which Mueller responded, “I believe that to be true.”
"So it's accurate to say the president knew that he was asking [Don McGahn] to deny facts that McGahn 'had repeatedly said were accurate.' Isn't that right?" Richmond asked Mueller, with the special counsel responding in the affirmative.
Like I said, you're a moron. cheetos knowingly intended to obstruct justice by ordering McGahn to fire mueller. Not only was there intent, there was an attempt.
Pfft.
After watching Mueller last week, it appears firing him may have been a benefit for the libs, not for "obstruction" claims, but for capacity to perform the job. Seeing many of them throwing him under the bus over his "competency" to testify has been interesting to read and watch.
Link to Mueller saying that.......
I fully believe he committed obstruction of justice, more than once.
Depends on if you thought about it out-loud...with another person....and talked about how to do it....technically one can conspire to obstruct justice...so you might want a different example
